A Comparative Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by

5 downloads 0 Views 600KB Size Report
Abstract. The purpose of this research is to analyze monolingual and bilingual university students' language learning strategies (LLS) comparatively and to.
European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

A Comparative Study of Language Learning Strategies Used by Monolingual and Bilingual Learners

Ahmet Yayla Assist. Prof. Dr, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Education, Van-Turkey

Ishak Kozikoglu Research Assist. Dr, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Education, VanTurkey

Sehnaz Nigar Celik Instructor, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Education, Van-Turkey doi: 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n26p1

URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n26p1

Abstract The purpose of this research is to analyze monolingual and bilingual university students’ language learning strategies (LLS) comparatively and to determine whether students’ level of using language learning strategies in foreign language learning process changes in terms of variables such as gender, department and school type. This research was conducted among 524 university students at Yüzüncü Yıl University and Bülent Ecevit University Çaycuma Vocational School. Data of the study was collected by “Strategy Inventory of Language Learning” developed by Oxford (1990) and adapted into Turkish by Cesur and Fer (2007). Data collected was analyzed with descriptive statistics and parametric tests. As a result of the research, it was found that bilingual students use language learning strategies in foreign language learning process more than monolingual students. Furthermore, it was found that university students use language learning strategies at middle level; students mostly use metacognitive strategies and use affective strategies the least; female students use language learning strategies more than male students except cognitive and affective strategies; English language and literature and English language teaching department students use language learning strategies more than department of translation students; 4 years faculty students use language learning strategies more than vocational school students. Keywords: Language learning strategies, bilingualism, university students

1

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Introduction As in all developing countries, foreign language learning and teaching in our country has gained importance with globalization, advances in technology and the increase in international interactions. Although teaching English as a foreign language in our country has a history of nearly half a century; it can be said to fail in achieving the desired success considering spent time, money and effort in foreign language teaching. While there are many reasons of the failure in effectively teaching English in our country such as physical and technical facilities, teacher competences, learning environments, work conditions etc.; methods, techniques and strategies used in foreign language learning and teaching are of great importance. In our country, learner-centered approaches in which the learner is active in language learning are emphasized rather than teacher-centered approaches in foreign language teaching of recent years. As the responsibility to learn is uploaded to the student in an environment having learner-centered approach, thoughts or behaviors of the students in learning process and how they learn have importance. This brings us to the concept of "learning strategies". Learning Strategies Learning strategies are defined in different ways by different researchers. Mayer and Weinstein (1983) defined learning strategies as thoughts and behaviors affecting the coding process of the learner; Oxford (1990) defined as strategies applied by learners to facilitate, speed up, organize learning, to make it more effective and transfer it to the new situations; O'Malley and Chamot (1990) defined as specific thoughts or behaviors that are used to help the individual in understanding, learning and keeping the knowledge in mind; Chamot (2004) defined as conscious thoughts and actions used to perform any learning goals; Senemoğlu (2013) defined as strategies including the inner-cognitive and meta-cognitive processes of the individual and used by learners to provide and direct their own learning. As can be seen from these definitions, in the narrowest sense, learning strategies can be defined as thoughts, behaviors and tools used by learners for interpreting, organizing and directing their own learning. Strategy is not a single action, is a series of creative actions used actively by the learners (Gülleroğlu and Özmen, 2013). Learning strategies not only contribute to the individual be effective when using or learning a language, but also contribute to an individual's self-directed learning (HongNam & Leavell, 2006). Strategic learners know what a task requires, have also capabilities to organize strategies that fit themselves and their learning capacities best (Chamot, 2004). Thus, it can be said that the individuals who use learning strategies in the learning process effectively have the skills to manage, regulate and control their own learning. Strategic learners use a

2

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

variety of strategies in foreign language learning as is the case in many learning situations. Language Learning Strategies It is presumed that there are certain social and cognitive variables that have an impact on language learning. Researchers have been seeking the variables that influence foreign language learning, stressing that learning strategies are another variable that create an impact on language learning. Researchers state that successful students are using a variety of strategies for learning languages and these strategies provide them to take more responsibility in the learning process (Tuncer, 2009). As in learning strategies, different researchers defined language learning strategies in different ways. Rubin (1981) defined language learning strategies as the strategies that directly and indirectly affect the learning process; Oxford (1990) defined as the steps used to facilitate the usage, calling back, storage and acquisition of the knowledge; Scarcella and Oxford (1992) defined as certain techniques, behavior and actions used by the students to achieve their own learning; Oxford (1996) defined as means used for selfdirected active participation that is necessary for improving communication skills; Griffiths (2003) defined as specific actions that are deliberately used by the learner for learning languages; Kashefian-Naeeini, Maarof and Salehi (2011) defined as deliberate thoughts that will accelerate the learning process; Gülleroğlu and Özmen (2013) defined as a factor that helps to determine how and how well the student learned a second language. With reference to these definitions, language learning strategies can be defined as deliberate thoughts, behaviors and means used in order to facilitate the individual’s learning in the process of foreign language learning. Effective use of language learning strategies in language learning process provides more performance and increases learner autonomy (Kashefian-Naeeini, Maarof, & Salehi, 2011). Language learning strategies are directly or indirectly associated with self-direction to a great extent and Oxford (1990) says that they contribute to autonomous learning (Kafipour & Naveh, 2011). Language learners are required to explore, test, evaluate different learning strategies and eventually choose effective strategies for themselves (Chamot, 2004). One of the challenges to study language learning strategies is that only some of them can be directly observed, in most of them meaning is extracted from behaviors (Griffiths, 2003). One of the most common ways to assess the language learning strategies is the usage of data collection tools such as survey, inventory and scales. Different researchers (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Stern, 1992) classified language learning strategies in different ways. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) classified language learning

3

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

strategies as meta-cognitive, cognitive and social-affective strategies; Stern (1992) classified as management and planning strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative-experiential strategies, interpersonal strategies and affective strategies (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Cesur, 2008). In the studies concerning the determination of language learning strategies, the most frequently used tool is "Strategy Inventory of Language Learning" developed by Oxford (1990). Because individual strategies are taken in connection with language skills such as reading, writing, listening and speaking skills in this data collection tool (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995).Oxford (1990) classified language learning strategies into two groups, namely direct and indirect strategies, and each group was divided into three sub-categories in itself. Oxford (1990) developed the inventory on the basis of this classification. In this study, “Strategy Inventory of Language Learning” developed by Oxford (1990) and adapted into Turkish by Cesur and Fer (2007) was used, because it is known as the most comprehensive classification and the most widely used data collection tool in the literature. Sub-categories of the strategies classified by Oxford (1990) and the techniques that can be employed at the development of these strategies are expressed as follows: 1. Direct Learning Strategies: Strategies discussed in this group are the ones which contribute directly to the learning and are classified into three categories as memory, cognitive and compensation strategies. Memory strategies: These are the strategies that help in sending the knowledge to the long-term memory in order to keep the knowledge in the memory and recall when needed. Techniques such as creating a map of meaning, establishing mental connections, grouping, binding, using keywords can be used concerning these strategies. Cognitive strategies: These are used in the creation of mental schemes and interpretation of learning. Techniques such as analyzing, comparing, summarizing and note-taking can be used concerning these strategies. Compensation strategies: These strategies are used when faced with missing information or communication barriers in using the language. Techniques such as benefiting native language when talking or writing, using facial expressions and body language, making use of tips, overcoming the limitations in various ways can be used concerning these strategies. 2. Indirect Learning Strategies: Strategies discussed in this group are the ones which are not directly related to the learning, but contribute to the individual’s regulation of his/her learning process, and are classified into three categories as meta-cognitive, affective and social strategies. Meta-cognitive strategies: These are the strategies that help the learners to organize, plan and evaluate their own learning. Techniques such as identifying learning goals, making organization, planning learning, doing selfassessment can be used concerning these strategies.

4

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Affective strategies: These are the strategies that help the learners to control the motivation, emotions and attitudes towards learning. Techniques such as developing a positive attitude towards language learning, writing down or sharing feelings experienced in language learning, taking risks, doing relaxation-oriented activities can be used concerning these strategies. Social strategies: These are strategies that help learners to have oral communication with the ones using the same language. Techniques such as cooperation, developing empathy, asking questions, creating cultural awareness can be used concerning these strategies (Oxford, 1990, p. 18-21). Language Learning Strategies in Bilingual Learners When definitions for ‘bilingual individuals' are examined in the literature, different views were expressed regarding the condition of being bilingual. But with the simplest definition, bilingual individuals are the ones who know two languages and can keep them apart from each other (Ahslen, 2006). Some classifications are available in the literature concerning bilingualism: These classifications have a wide diversity ranging from being competent in the second language as native language to ability to use any language’s feature in the second language. For example, anyone who can read and write but cannot speak in another language apart from native language can be called as bilingual. Several researchers consider various criteria relating to the state of being bilingual. Language learning age of the individuals who learn a language other than native language (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996; Wartenburger et al, 2003; Ahslen, 2006); language proficiency level and frequency of use (Bloomfield, 1933; Haugen, 1953; Mackey, 1962; Weinleich, 1968); social factors and the context in which language is learned (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981) emerge as important factors in the classification of bilinguals. The most widely used classification criteria are the ones based on age and language proficiency levels. The classifications that are made according to the age criteria can be grouped as early, late and adult bilingualism; the classifications that are made according to language proficiency levels can be defined as fluent, balanced and dominant (Ahslen, 2006). Apart from these criteria, Ahslen (2006) proposed a comprehensive classification concerning learning age criteria and grouped it under three headings: Compound bilingualism: Both two languages are learned simultaneously before 6 years old and generally one of the languages is the one learned by family members; Coordinated bilingualism: Second language is learned at home or in another setting before puberty; Natural bilingualism: The first language is dominant and the second language is instrumental; the individual thinks in the first language and then translates this into the second language (Ahlsen, 2006). Bilinguals in this study can be considered as compound or coordinated

5

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

bilinguals because all of them acquired both languages they know simultaneously before 6 years old. It is considered that a person who is capable of using his/her native language at a certain level will act in a more conscious way with regard to the structure of the language to be learned as part of foreign language learning (Sarıca, 2014). As a result, it is argued that bilingual individuals will learn a foreign language more effectively and use language learning strategies more often, because similarities between the foreign language to be learned by an individual and other languages that he/she speaks are likely to facilitate the process of learning a foreign language. Studies on language learning strategies that bilinguals use in the acquisition of a new language is often done in countries where English is the official language or spoken language. Studies conducted on the usage of language learning strategies by bilinguals in countries where official language or the native language is not English is quite limited in the literature. In the study conducted by Tuncer (2009) in Turkey, language learning strategies used by monolingual and bilingual individuals who learn English as a foreign language were examined and it was determined that bilingual individuals use more language learning strategies. Undoubtedly, bilingual individuals are more advantageous than monolingual individuals because of their past language experiences in learning a new language and bilingual individuals display better performance in various cognitive skills (Hakuta, 1990; Wharton, 2000). It is important to make a comparison of bilingual and monolingual individuals in terms of language learning strategies that are used in the process of learning a foreign language in Turkey. Purpose of the study The present study aimed to make a comparative analysis of language learning strategies used by bilingual and monolingual university students and determine whether students’ level of using language learning strategies in the process of learning a foreign language vary or not, depending on “gender,” “department,” and “school type (faculty/vocational school of higher education)”. In accordance with this general purpose, the following questions are tried to be answered in this research: 1At what level university students use language learning strategies in learning English? 2Is there a significant difference between the levels of monolingual and bilingual university students’ using language learning strategies? 3Is there a significant difference between the levels of university students’ language learning strategies usage in terms of gender? 4Is there a significant difference between the levels of university students’ language learning strategies usage in terms of department?

6

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

5Is there a significant difference between the levels of university students’ language learning strategies usage in terms of school type (faculty/vocational school in higher education)? Method The Research Model This research is descriptive survey model. As survey models aim to describe a situation in the same way that took place in the past or that still continues (Karasar, 2013, p. 77), it is a proper model for the purpose of this research. Study Group This study was conducted with 524 students attending Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Education/Literature and Bülent Ecevit University, Çaycuma Vocational School of Higher Education. The distribution of the participants in terms of personal variables is presented in Table 1: Table 1: The distribution of the participants in terms of personal variables Personal Features Category Number Percentage (%) (N) Gender Department

School Type

Bilingualism

Female Male English Language Teaching English Language and Literature Applied English-Turkish Translation Faculty Vocational School in Higher Education Bilingual Monolingual

317 207 68 196 260 264 260

60.5 39.5 13.0 37.4 49.6 50.4 49.6

189 335

36.1 63.9

According to Table 1, 317 (%60.5) students are female and 207 (%39.5) students are male. 68 (%13.0) participants are department of English language teaching students, 196 (%37.4) participants are department of English language and literature students, 260 participants (%49.6) are department of applied English-Turkish translation students. 264 participants (%50.4) are 4 years faculty students and 260 (%49.6) participants are vocational school in higher education students. 335 participants (%63.9) are monolinguals, 189 participants (%36.1) are bilinguals. Data Collection Tool The survey data was collected by using the 50-item five Likert-type “Strategies Inventory for Language Learning” developed by Oxford (1990) and adapted to Turkish by Cesur and Fer (2007). “Strategies Inventory for

7

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Language Learning” consists of six sub-dimensions that are memory strategies (1-9 items), cognitive strategies (10-23 items), compensation strategies (24-29 items), meta-cognitive strategies (30-38 items), affective strategies (39-44 items) and social strategies (45-50 items). In order to determine the realization level of each item in the data collection tool, the replies concerning scale items were graded as “Always true”, “Frequently true”, “Sometimes true”, “Rarely true” and “Not true at all”. According to the validity and reliability analysis done by Cesur and Fer (2007), the KMO value of inventory was calculated as "0.93", the Bartlett Test was calculated as "12937.57" and found to be statistically significant. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the total scale was calculated as 0.92. In this study, the scale’s Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was also found as 0.92. This shows that the scale can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool. Analysis of Data Research data collected in this study were analyzed by using SPSS 18.0 statistic program. Frequency and percentage were used in the presentation of descriptive statistics. Evaluation of the students’ levels of using language learning strategies was made based on the averages specified by Oxford (1990). The mean scores and standard deviation of each item were calculated in accordance with the scores from the responses to the inventory items in order to determine students’ levels of using language learning strategies. If the strategies used by students rate below 2.4, it was considered that their “level of strategy usage is poor”; cases in which the rates ranged between 2.5 and 3.4 were considered to have “strategy usage is of a medium level”; and rates of 3.4 and above meant that “strategy usage is at a high level.” Thus, the analyses were interpreted in accordance with these categories. The t-test was used in order to compare language learning strategies used by bilingual and monolingual students and also to determine if the language learning strategies used by students varied depending on gender or not; ANOVA was used to determine if the language learning strategies used by students differed in accordance to departments that they attend. In analysis of data, significance level is accepted as .05. Results Results Concerning First Sub-problem Table 2 reports the arithmetic means and standard deviations calculated on the basis of university students’ answers to the scale and its subdimensions, concerning the first sub-problem of the study: “At what level university students use language learning strategies in learning English?”

8

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on the Scale of LLS Language Learning X Strategies Memory Strategies 3.14 Cognitive Strategies 3.22 Compensation Strategies 3.36 Metacognitive Strategies 3.63 Affective Strategies 3.06 Social Strategies 3.33 Total 3.29

Sd 0.63 0.61 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.52

The findings reported in Table 2 show that the students generally use language learning strategies at medium levels ( X =3.29). In other words, they make moderate use of language learning strategies. The most commonly used language learning strategies are the metacognitive ones, ( X =3.63), followed by compensation ( X =3.36), social ( X =3.33), cognitive ( X =3.22), memory ( X =3.14), and finally affective ( X =3.06) strategies. The arithmetic mean scores received by the students for language learning strategies show that students use metacognitive strategies at high levels, and the other strategies at medium levels. The most commonly used language learning strategies among students are the metacognitive ones, while the least preferred are the affective ones. Results Concerning the Second Sub-Problem Table 3 reports the t-test results for language learning strategies used by bilingual and monolingual students, which allow the second sub-problem of the study to be examined: “Is there a significant difference between the levels of monolingual and bilingual university students’ using language learning strategies?” Table 3: T-test results for language learning strategies used by bilingual and monolingual students

9

L.L. Strategies

Bilingualism

N

X

S

sd

t

p

Memory strategies Cognitive strategies Compensation strategies Metacognitive strategies Affective strategies Social strategies

Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual

189 335 189 335 189 335 189 335 189 335 189

3.16 3.12 3.36 3.14 3.55 3.24 3.84 3.52 3.14 3.00 3.45

0.61 0.64 0.53 0.64 0.65 0.75 0.64 0.77 0.67 0.77 0.59

522

0.71

.48

522

4.00

.000

522

4.69

.000

522

4.91

.000

522

2.10

.04

522

2.83

.005

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Total

Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual

335 189 335

3.26 3.42 3.21

0.80 0.43 0.57

522

4.26

.000

The findings of Table 3 show that bilingual students received higher scores for using language learning strategies, both in total scale and in its subdimensions, compared with monolingual students. In other words, bilingual students make more use of language learning strategies than monolingual students. In addition, bilingual students make more use of metacognitive and compensation strategies compared with monolingual students. According to the results of the t-test conducted to see whether there were significant differences between bilingual and monolingual students’ use of language learning strategies, there are significant differences between the monolingual and bilingual students’ levels of use of the language learning strategies (p3 strategies lang. & 6 33 60 een 6 2 00 2>3 literatur group 189. 52 e 68 3. 0. s 37 1 English 31 52 Withi 0.36 teachin 26 n 195. 52 g 0 3. 0. group 78 3 Transla 11 63 s tion Total Compens English 19 3. 0. Betw 21.0 2 10.5 21.2 .0 1>3 ation lang. & 6 55 68 een 2 12 15 00 2>3 strategies literatur group 52 e 68 3. 0. s 258. 1 English 57 62 Withi 16 0.50 teachin 26 n 52 g 0 3. 0. group 279. 3 15 74 s 18

11

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Transla Total tion Metacog English 19 3. 0. Betw 14.2 2 7.12 13.4 .0 nitive lang. & 6 82 71 een 4 2 37 00 strategies literatur group 52 e 68 3. 0. s 276. 1 English 73 62 Withi 12 0.53 teachin 26 n 52 g 0 3. 0. group 290. 3 Transla 47 76 s 36 tion Total Affective English 19 3. 0. Betw 3.93 2 1.96 3.65 .0 strategies lang. & 6 15 79 een 4 0 3 literatur group 280. 52 e 68 3. 0. s 31 1 English 11 58 Withi 0.54 teachin 26 n 284. 52 g 0 2. 0. group 24 3 Transla 97 72 s tion Total Social English 19 3. 0. Betw 11.9 2 5.97 11.4 .0 strategies lang. & 6 49 70 een 5 3 33 00 literatur group 52 e 68 3. 0. s 272. 1 English 44 71 Withi 21 0.52 teachin 26 n 52 g 0 3. 0. group 284. 3 Transla 18 74 s 16 tion Total Total English 19 3. 0. Betw 8.12 2 4.06 14.9 .0 lang. & 6 42 51 een 0 85 00 literatur group 141. 52 e 68 3. 0. s 17 1 English 40 44 Withi 0.27 teachin 26 n 149. 52 g 0 3. 0. group 29 3 Transla 16 55 s tion Total Note: 1- English language and literature 2- English teaching 3- Translation p3 2>3

1>3 2>3

1>3 2>3

1>3 2>3

The findings reported in Table 5 show that students majoring in English language and literature received the highest overall scores for the scale ( X =3.42), followed by those majoring in the teaching of English ( X =3.40) and Applied English and translation ( X =3.16). Students attending the departments of English language and literature and English teaching, which are administratively part of a faculty, had similar levels of using language learning strategies, whereas students attending the department of Translation, which is part of a vocational school, had relatively lower levels of use. The

12

European Scientific Journal September 2016 edition vol.12, No.26 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

same also applies to all the individual sub-dimensions. According to the results of the ANOVA analysis, conducted to see whether there were significant differences between language learning strategies of students from different departments, there were significant differences between both the overall scores and the sub-dimension scores (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social) received by students pursuing different majors (p